A post in which I send my readers on a blog hunt
President George W. Bush and New York Governor Eliot Spitzer both seem way too fond of executive privilege. Bush, of course, has gone so far as to order Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten ignore Congressional subpoenas. The AP story sums up the state of play: Miers’ testimony emerged as the battleground for a broader scuffle ...
President George W. Bush and New York Governor Eliot Spitzer both seem way too fond of executive privilege. Bush, of course, has gone so far as to order Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten ignore Congressional subpoenas. The AP story sums up the state of play: Miers' testimony emerged as the battleground for a broader scuffle between the White House and Congress over the limits of executive privilege. Presidents since the nation's founding have sought to protect from the prying eyes of Congress the advice given them by advisers, while Congress has argued that it is charged by the U.S. Constitution with conducting oversight of the executive branch. The dispute extended to Congress' request for information on other matters, including the FBI's abuses of civil liberties under the USA Patriot Act and Bush's secretive wiretapping program. But it is a pair of congressional subpoenas for two women who once were Bush's top aides that has moved the disagreement to the brink of legal sanctions and perhaps a court battle. Former White House political director Sara Taylor appeared Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee and in a tentative performance sought to answer some lawmakers' questions and remain mum on others, citing Bush's claim of privilege. Senators didn't seem eager to cite her with contempt, but Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, said he had not yet made that decision. Miers, in contrast, chose to skip the House hearing Thursday, citing White House Counsel Fred Fielding's letter to her lawyer conveying Bush's order not to show up. In letters sent the night before to Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and Sanchez, Bush and Fielding cited several legal opinions that they said indicated that the president's immediate advisers had absolute immunity from congressional subpoenas.Miers and Bolten now face possible contempt of Congress charges. Now we turn to Eliot Spitzer. Danny Hakim summarizes the state of play in the New York Times: Gov. Eliot Spitzer vowed on Wednesday to fight any State Senate inquiry into his administration?s internal operations, even as Republican senators were laying the groundwork for an investigation that could lead to subpoenas of top officials. The administration?s stance sets the stage for a potential showdown with the Senate, and it came amid rising concerns even among Mr. Spitzer?s fellow Democrats about whether the governor and his staff had been candid about their office?s effort to discredit a political rival. A scathing report issued on Monday by Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo concluded that the governor?s staff had broken no laws but had misused the State Police to gather information about Joseph L. Bruno, the Senate majority leader, in an effort to plant a negative story about him. The governor has maintained that he was misled by his staff and knew nothing about the effort to discredit Mr. Bruno. But two of his closest aides refused to be interviewed by the attorney general?s investigators, intensifying suspicion, especially among the governor?s critics, that Mr. Spitzer and his staff had not been forthright. At a fiery press conference in Saratoga Springs, Mr. Bruno, the state?s top Republican, lashed out at the governor and signaled that the Senate fully intended to examine the matter further.... [W]ith the decision to fight a Senate inquiry, Mr. Spitzer appeared to be shifting from quiet contrition to a more confrontational stand. The move not only sets up a potential constitutional clash over executive privilege, but could also create a major distraction in the Capitol. Senator George H. Winner Jr., the chairman of the Senate Committee on Investigations and Government Operations, wrote to Mr. Cuomo on Wednesday, seeking copies of depositions, statements and e-mail traffic he had obtained. Mr. Bruno, asked if a Senate committee had the power to subpoena the governor, said ?I am told by counsel that we have subpoena powers and that we can subpoena the governor, anybody.? But Christine Anderson, the governor?s press secretary, said in a statement, ?The State Senate lacks the constitutional authority to conduct investigatory hearings into the internal operations of the governor?s office.?Assignment to blog readers: is there anyone in the blogosphere partisan enough to defend one of these claims of executive privilege but attacked the other?
President George W. Bush and New York Governor Eliot Spitzer both seem way too fond of executive privilege. Bush, of course, has gone so far as to order Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten ignore Congressional subpoenas. The AP story sums up the state of play:
Miers’ testimony emerged as the battleground for a broader scuffle between the White House and Congress over the limits of executive privilege. Presidents since the nation’s founding have sought to protect from the prying eyes of Congress the advice given them by advisers, while Congress has argued that it is charged by the U.S. Constitution with conducting oversight of the executive branch. The dispute extended to Congress’ request for information on other matters, including the FBI’s abuses of civil liberties under the USA Patriot Act and Bush’s secretive wiretapping program. But it is a pair of congressional subpoenas for two women who once were Bush’s top aides that has moved the disagreement to the brink of legal sanctions and perhaps a court battle. Former White House political director Sara Taylor appeared Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee and in a tentative performance sought to answer some lawmakers’ questions and remain mum on others, citing Bush’s claim of privilege. Senators didn’t seem eager to cite her with contempt, but Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, said he had not yet made that decision. Miers, in contrast, chose to skip the House hearing Thursday, citing White House Counsel Fred Fielding’s letter to her lawyer conveying Bush’s order not to show up. In letters sent the night before to Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and Sanchez, Bush and Fielding cited several legal opinions that they said indicated that the president’s immediate advisers had absolute immunity from congressional subpoenas.
Miers and Bolten now face possible contempt of Congress charges. Now we turn to Eliot Spitzer. Danny Hakim summarizes the state of play in the New York Times:
Gov. Eliot Spitzer vowed on Wednesday to fight any State Senate inquiry into his administration?s internal operations, even as Republican senators were laying the groundwork for an investigation that could lead to subpoenas of top officials. The administration?s stance sets the stage for a potential showdown with the Senate, and it came amid rising concerns even among Mr. Spitzer?s fellow Democrats about whether the governor and his staff had been candid about their office?s effort to discredit a political rival. A scathing report issued on Monday by Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo concluded that the governor?s staff had broken no laws but had misused the State Police to gather information about Joseph L. Bruno, the Senate majority leader, in an effort to plant a negative story about him. The governor has maintained that he was misled by his staff and knew nothing about the effort to discredit Mr. Bruno. But two of his closest aides refused to be interviewed by the attorney general?s investigators, intensifying suspicion, especially among the governor?s critics, that Mr. Spitzer and his staff had not been forthright. At a fiery press conference in Saratoga Springs, Mr. Bruno, the state?s top Republican, lashed out at the governor and signaled that the Senate fully intended to examine the matter further…. [W]ith the decision to fight a Senate inquiry, Mr. Spitzer appeared to be shifting from quiet contrition to a more confrontational stand. The move not only sets up a potential constitutional clash over executive privilege, but could also create a major distraction in the Capitol. Senator George H. Winner Jr., the chairman of the Senate Committee on Investigations and Government Operations, wrote to Mr. Cuomo on Wednesday, seeking copies of depositions, statements and e-mail traffic he had obtained. Mr. Bruno, asked if a Senate committee had the power to subpoena the governor, said ?I am told by counsel that we have subpoena powers and that we can subpoena the governor, anybody.? But Christine Anderson, the governor?s press secretary, said in a statement, ?The State Senate lacks the constitutional authority to conduct investigatory hearings into the internal operations of the governor?s office.?
Assignment to blog readers: is there anyone in the blogosphere partisan enough to defend one of these claims of executive privilege but attacked the other?
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
